Talk:Safavid dynasty/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

Turkic

Actually there is Khorasan Turks area. Shah Ismail wasn't persian. Safevids were nomad Turkmens. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.237.25.227 (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Shah Soltan Hosain

Ali, is the information regarding Soltan Hosain(the latest edit) correct? Except for the 'supposed' reference listed, I've searched and found no other information regarding his love of wine or lack of governance. Thanks. Kansas Bear (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It is correct. Actually, with the exception of Shah Tahmasp I who became very observant religiously (after quitting opium and wine and Harem), most of the Safavid Kings had Harem, wine and etc. Some were effective in governance like Shah Abbas the Great. Of course the kings were very religious, but they also had their Harem and Wine. For example Shah Abbas walked from Isfahan to Mashhad on foot! to visit the shrine of Imam Reza. Sultan Hussain is seen as an ineffective ruler and is blamed for the fall of the dynasty to Mahmud the Afghan. I do not have the particular book quoted on me, but the book quoted is critically acclaimed and its author is from Harvard University. The Encyclopedia of Islam article written by the Safavid scholar PAR EXCELLANCE (Roger Savoary) also mentions the same thing: Under the last two Safavids, Shah Sulayman(1077-1105/1666-94) and Sultān Husayn (1105-35/1694-1722), the pace of decline accelerated. Both were weak and pliable rulers, products of the harem system. Sulayman, an alcoholic, had little interest in the affairs of the state. His son, Shah Sultan Husayn, was no better and his derisive nickname "Mullah Hussain" is significant. Unrestrained by the authority of the ruler, the "privy council" of the Women, the Harem, and the court eunuchs usurped power at the centre of the ruling institution.
If you are interested in Safavids (perhaps you want to improve this article), I would recommend the article from the Encyclopedia of Islam. I have the whole article and can E-mail it to you if you wish. Encyclopedia Iranica also has many articles on various Safavid rulers, specially its founder and the its greatest ruler: Shah Abbas I. Just send me an E-mail from Wikipedia and I'll sent you the Encyclopedia of Islam article if you are interested. Thanks --Nepaheshgar 14:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Copy-editing

My, it looks like this article has seen some lively debate; after all the above warnings, I'm a little worried to have made edits! But in a search for clarity to help other novices to this subject: I tried to add transitions and explanations about who's who, what's what, and when, in the Ismail I section. I tried very much not to change content, and hope I didn't step on any toes! Cheers, Isocephaly (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What an Article

This article is one of the most obvious examples of failure in the policies of Wikipedia! Because of nationalistic sentiments that have caused so many edits, every one coming up with something in their favour, the article is nothing coherent and truly informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.136.137.83 (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

what a comment.--Xashaiar (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

To Kansas Bear about Georgian

Daer Kansas Bear, Let me answer this question instead of the anonymous user. I agree with him. The text did not talk necessarily about the Safavid ancestry but about the Safavids. So many Safavid Politicians and generals for example Allahverdi Khan Undiladze and Imamquli Khan Undiladze were Georgian. Nevertheless even if we only concentrate ourselves to the royal family there is still much georgian blodd. For example Shah Abbas I had a Georgian mother (see the artcile on the Safavids) ^ Eskandar Beg, p. 133; tr. Savory I, pp. 215-17 . Eskandar beg mentiones also many more for example the prince Heydar Mirza had a Georgian mother too. Many Safavids (princes and Princesses) were married to Georgians (for example to the Undiladze family) too.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think having some Georgian servants on service of Safavid kings does not yet qualify for transliterating the name of dynasty in title in Georgian, thus creating confusion about origins. There were other servants of Safavids as well, does not mean that all those titles in all languages need to be listed. Also added a reference from Roger Savory in 2007 about Azeri Turkish being a language of court. Atabəy (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I kind of agree with Atabek. The Safavids were of many different backgrounds, of course the Iranian Kurdish origins being prominent, as it was the direct male linage. However, when it comes to language, only two languages were important: Persian as the general "lingua franca" of the Persian Empire, and Azeri as the dominant family language of the Safavids.
I also suggest to re-write the origin section. It is messed up right now and very confusing. We should take Roger M. Savory as the main source, as he is regarded the most important scholar on Safavid history (he has written almost all Safavid articles in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Iranica, Cambridge History of Iran, etc, and he has published a very detailed book on Safavid origins). There is no need to mention the obscure origins of the family in the intro (the current version is confusing, because the Safavid's "Azeri" origin was only through the female line; as such, the Georgian, Circassian, Afghan, etc origins of the family should also be mentioned in the intro, if we are to keep this version). Instead, their origin should be mentioned in detail in the origin section, pointing out, that their origin is still very obscure. Tājik (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I added more sources. And it seems that Atabek tries to ridicule the whole argument by saying that Safavid Georgians were servants. Georgians had often high ranking position, even the royal line had Georhgian admixture. There is substantial evidence that the origins of the Safavids was Kurdish, but later on the family intermarried with Azeris, Persians, Turcomans and Georgians. I diagaree with Tajik about the Afghans. In fact Afghans (=Pashtuns) were the enemies of Iranians. Due to their religion the Safavids did not intermarried with them either. Only Nader Shah Afshar was able to pacify some Afghan tribes and mainly because he set them against tyhe other Afghans.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Ashraf Khan was married to a Safavid princess, although the marriage was politically motivated, in order to claim the Iranian throne. See also: Charlemagne to the Mughals. The Afghans (Pashtuns) certainly had more influence on the Mughal court (through the royal Lodhi and Suri families). But your argument is weak, because the Safavids also had marriages with local Sunni dynasties, the Mughals of India being the most important. Tājik (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The article says that Safavid governor of Kandahar (probably Gurgin Khan) married Indian Mughals. Fairly the royal Mughals of india were of different nature to the Safavids that the Pashtun tribes )no offense meant though). Ashraf was not a Safavid. Though I cannot exclude that Safavids might have taken wives from pashtuns, I do not have any referrences that these girls had any high positions in the Safavid court. I do not also know a single case when a Safavid king or prince had a Sunni mother. But this is a minor thing.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the detailed family linage of the Safavids, but in the first generations, only princes with aristocratic Turkoman mothers from the Aq and Qara Qoyunlu clans had a chance of becoming kings. Shah Ismail's mother was an Aq Qoyunlu, so was Tahmasp's mother - both members of the powerful Rumlu tribe, the most important among the Qizilbash. The first exception was Abbas who had a Georgian mother. That was due to the the political influence Ali Quli Khan Shamlu. The Shamlus were rivals to the Rumlus and wanted to end their political dominance. Thus, he promoted the son of a Georgian slave to the throne because he hoped to use him as a puppet. However, as history proves, Shah Abbas became the most powerful of all Safavids. One of his first decisions was getting rid of the untrustworthy Turkomans, by limitting the power of the Qizilbash, putting 5 of their leaders to death, and by creating an army of Armenian and Georgian mercenaries, loyal to him personally. He also moved his capital away from the Turkoman centers in Azerbaijan to the more urban Persian heartland in Isfahan, further weakening the Turkoman influence. The Turkomans still remained a powerful force within the empire, but their monopoly was destroyed, and from now on, new elements, especially those from Armenia, Georgia, and India played an important role the Safavid court. And that is also reflected in the position of Georgian and Armenian women in the harem. The character of the dynasty was, undoubtedly, Persian and Iranian, although ethnic Persians had almost no print on the younger Safavid generations. Persian scholars and politicians were the "uniting element" within the court and kept the ethnically diverse empire together. As early as the reign of Shah Ismail, Persian nobles were appointed to high offices (even as leaders of Qizilbash military bands) in order to keep the more independent Turkomans under control (see: M. Savory in Islamic Studies: Journal of the Central Institute of Islamic Research, "The significance of the political murder of Mirza Salman") Tājik (talk) 11:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not know why you say that Shah Abbas mother was a slave. As I know she was of Shalikashvili clan, a Royal clan. And secondly Armenian Georgian and Circassian soldiers were all different. Armenians did not enter the military easily. They first became Moslem and lost Armenian ethnicity. Georgians controled the Tofangchi army. these were Moslem Georgians but still very georgian. Circassians were indeed mercenaries or slaves. Georgia as a rather autonomous province of the Safavids should deliver the court each year an amount of wine and soldiers. Most Georgians in Safavid army were of that nature and indeed were very loyal to the xtent in which they were often used in order to supress rebelion, even those in Georgia. Georgians were already serving the Safavid court already in Shah tahamps era, but indeed their number was not that high as in the time of Shah Abbas onwards. And No Shah Abbas was not the first king with a Caucasian mother. It was ismail II. While Heydar Mirza )oif georgian mother) was due to become King, he got killed in order to make the way free for Ismail II of a Circassian mother. His Circassian half sister appears to have played an essential role in this. Georgians plus some Turkic speaking tribes favored Heydar mirza but some other tribes favored ismail II. Also Shah Safi's mother was Georgian. Also the rivalry between Undiladze's and Saakadze's are important. Shah Safi and Saakadze's conspired to kill the Undiladze who have been the most politically powerfull family in the Shah Abbas era. Undiladze sons married Safavid princesses. All these is written by Eskandar beg the safavid Royal historian. Also an odd fact is that Imamqoli Khan was father in law of Saakadze guys who killed him and his sons )one of which is thought to be in fact Shah Abbas's son raised by him). It is fair to say that Undiladze family plus Shah Abbas meant the Golden era of the Safavids. Saakadze plus Shah Safi (also of georgian element) meant a gradual decline of the empire, to extent that it fell to the Afghan hordes who masaccred much of Iran. I do not know much about Indians. There might be Indian girls in the safavid harem but they were probably not as important as the Georgian, iranic and Turcoman element in the Safavid court. I have not yet came across any prince or King with an indian mother or a Safavid general of indian origin. Safavid Tofangchi )=modern) army and a lot of governors were Georgians. But it seems that they have assited the Afghans as the Ottoman Turks did. Nader Shah's grudge against the Indians had its reasons.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Georgian presence in form of Tofangchis and others did not appear until the late Safavid reign, and Tofangchis were servants of Safavid court, they were not part of Safavid royal dynasty. So I am not sure how notable it is to show Georgian transliteration, let it alone move it ahead of Azeri. There is no legitimate reference claiming that Georgian language was ever used as a court language of Safavid empire. Atabəy (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

And I am against monopolizing the article based on Savory reference only, there were other notable researchers writing about Safavid origins as well. We already went through discussions of what should be in the origins, and current version reflects that solution. If we go by many references, then we will have to discuss the reasonability of even mentioning Kurdish as primary in light of Safavid dynasty being of entirely Azerbaijani identity by the time of their rise to power, didn't happen out of nothing.
Having some Kurdish ancestor 7-8 generations back is less notable even on father's side, than having half-Turkish mother and fully Turkish grandfather who was AqQoyunlu ruler. For that to happen, one needs to scholarly prove that Sheykh Heydar or Sheykh Junayd ever associated themselves with Kurdish origin in their lifetime.
Moreover, I believe there is too much concentration of trying to classify Safavid origins than researching the essence and impact of their rule on Azerbaijan, Iran and the larger region. Let's leave passionate WP:POV national bickering subjects aside, and focus on WP:NPOV facts to improve the article further. Atabəy (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I told you before this too. read carefull what I wrote. It answers all your questions. If you want you can put Azeri in front of Georgian. No problem. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see that as something significant or worthy of editing or disputes. The fact is that Georgian was not notable enough to be listed as transliteration on Safavid article, and keeping this transliteration in intro is not going to change historical facts. Much like removing Azeri Latin spellings is also not useful, as the Latin alphabet is the mainstream (literature, press, media) in which language known as Azerbaijani (Turkic) is developing for the past 16 years, and was developing some 80 years ago. Atabəy (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Now this is very funny, removing the Georgian name but include the Latin Azeri name. You are not going to tell me that: Oh yes Latin alphabet was used for Azeri in the 16th century. stop this. Should I laugh at it or cry for it?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Your criticism duly noted, Atabek, but your claim, that the Safavids were "Azerbaijani in identity" is most certainly wrong, and, indeed, we have already discussed this. The identity of the dynasty, from the very beginning on, was exclusively "Iranian", deeply rooted in the Iranian traditions of monarchy and priestly rule (sources are given in the text).
As for the origin: all I am saying is that there is no need to mention that in the intro. It's quite obvious from the sources that Ismail did not identify himself as an Aq Qoyunlu or with his grandfather, that's the reason why the dynasty became known as the "Safavid dynasty" - named after Sheikh Safi and, more immediately, after Sheikh Haydar Safavi who was murdered by the Aq Qoyunlu. You also give too much credit to the Turkish poetry of Ismail. As Vladimir Minorsky notes, the difference between Ismail and his Ottoman counterpart Suleyman (who wrote exclusively in Persian) was the fact that Suleyman used the Persian literary tradition to entertain himself and the upper aristocratic class of his empire, while Ismail chose the Turkish language for his poetry in order to convince the dissatisfied Aq and Qara Qoyunlu nomads to join him and his movement. Minorsky even points out that certain words and grammatical structures in his poetry suggest that Turkish was not his first language, though he must have been bi-lingual from birth: "... Shāh Ismā'īl, even though he must have been bi-lingual from birth, was not writing for his own heart's delight. He had to address his adherents in a language fully intelligible to them, and thus the choice of the Turcoman Turkish became a nessecity for him. The admixture of Chaghatay forms in Ismā'īl's poetry would indicate that he did not feel any one definite dialect as his own, but this admixture must have a purely literary origin (influence of Chaghatay dīvāns) ..." (Minorsky, V. "The Poetry of Shāh Ismā'īl I"; Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 10, No. 4. (1942), pp. 1006a-1053a.) Tājik (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Khabaghi reference was used four times as different references. So I merged all into one per book template. Also, Georgians were a foreign element in Safavid court, according to the same source. There is no sufficient evidence that Georgians had relevance to Safavid family lineage or ethnic origin. And Greek origin was Pontic Greek which I clarified in the edit. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia Iranica has finally published its article on the Safavids. Regarding the present discussion, the Iranica article explains:
  • "... Thirdly, military and political power in Persia was generally in the hands of ethnic Turks, while ethnic Persians, called Tajiks, were dominant in the areas of administration and culture. As Persians of Kurdish ancestry and of a non-tribal background, the Safavids did not fit this pattern, though the state they set up with the assistance of Turkmen tribal forces of eastern Anatolia closely resembled this division in its makeup. ..."
As for the cultural elements and identity of the dynasty, the author points out:
  • "... Most importantly, the Safavids introduced a concept of patrimonial kingship, combining territorial authority with religious legitimacy that, with modifications, would endure until the 20th century. The political system that emerged under them had overlapping political and religious boundaries and a core language, Persian, which served as the literary tongue, and even began to replace Arabic as the vehicle for theological discourse ..."
As for the Georgian element, Iranica says:
  • "... Only in the 1530s did the Shah emerge victorious from the internal struggle, determined to consolidate his power by curtailing the unruly Qezelbāš. Hence the first appointments of Tajik officials to key positions traditionally reserved for Turks, including military ones. The origins of the corps of ḡolāms, “slave soldiers” serving as royal retainers, also date back to this period, though at this stage most ḡolāms still consisted of non-Qezelbāš tribal elements and urban dwellers. The royal practice of contracting marriages with Georgian and Circassian women originates from this period as well, though for the time being the ones who gained the throne continued to be the sons of Turkmen mothers. ..."
So, Georgians and Circassians are part of the Safavid linage (keeping in mind that the Turkish element is also "only" through the female line, while the male linage being Iranian Kurdish), although the first kings were usually born to "noble" Turkmen mothers.
These ifos should be included in the article. Tājik (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
who has written that entry?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The author is Rudi Mathee, "Distinguished Professor of History" at the University of Delaware. According to the university's website, he is teaching "Middle Eastern history, with a research focus on early modern Iran and the Persian Gulf." He has published "numerous articles on aspects of Safavid and Qajar Iran" and is "President of the Association for the Study of Persianate Societies, 2003-2005. Recipient of the 2006 Albert Hourani Book Prize, awarded by the Middle East Studies Association of North America, and winner of of the Said Sirjani Book Prize, 2004-2005, awarded by the International Society for Iranian Studies." Tājik (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
No need to advertise him so much. Everyone in the Iranian history knows him. Some say that he is oldfashioned and Western-centric. There has never been slavery in Iran. But the core of what he says is true.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
"There has never been slavery in Iran" - this claim is most certainly wrong. But off-topic. Tājik (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
"The Qajar Pact", by Vanessa Martin:Chapter 8 Slavery and Black Slaves in Iran in the 19th century[1] --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
No. In order to speak of slavery, one should examine first the modes of labor relations, PLUS the rights and obligations PLUS the social postion of that particular labor.About the court military servants: no one can say that they were the same as slaves, as they got often prestigious positions in the politics. About the domestic servants, in Qajar time and modern Iran, which still are lablled as Nokar and Kolfat: they are usually domestic servants who serve a lord's hous. But they have the right to food, shelter and wages. They can leave the Lord's house whenever they want. Though it is true that the domestic servants were usually from the poor rural classes, it is still not comparable to slavery.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Renaming the page

The name of Safavid state was Dowlat-e Safaviyyeh, hence branding the historical name with ethnicity definitions is original research and NPOV. Also, I would recommend Babakexorramdin to provide reliable references regarding Georgian origins of Safavids, instead of replicating and fabricating Aptin Garabaghi reference 4 times as different sources. Claiming that Safavid dynasty association with Georgians was equivalent to their associations with Azeris or Kurds is simply not based on any research work. Atabəy (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the previous name was more correct because the "Safavid dynasty" had a very long history of existence before their empire , that is partially covered in the article Safaviya (sufi order). So this article is going to discuss Safavid Persian empire and the other one about Safavid sufi dynasty - all of them branches of Safavids- --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The dynasty started with the first ruler in Safavid line. The clan of Safavids existed longer, but clan and dynasty are not the same thing. Grandmaster 19:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Then two separate articles are needed. Tājik (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
There are already two separate articles , but changing the name has made the confusion . The Sufi clan of Safaviya is many years older than the ruler dynasty . The term Dynasty (سلسله) for Safavids can be used to describe both rulers of political and /or spiritual power .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I think this article should be named "Safavid Empire" and should only deal with the political entity ruled by the Safavids. Another article, maybe named Safavid dynasty, should only deal with the ruling house. The article Safaviya (sufi order) should only deal with the spiritual Sufi order. That means: 3 distinct articles are needed. Tājik (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Qizilbash

I added back the text with a reference to the fact that Qizilbash word means "Red-head" in Turkish. Atabəy (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

And I reverted back. It is amazing that you as someone who claims to be an Azeri did not know the origin of this word. Just to remind you of the simple fact that there is no Q in Turkish.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The word is of Ottoman Turkish origin (see Encyclopaedia of Islam). Tājik (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Ottoman Turkish is not relevant here and in addition it did not use the Latin selfmade alphabet of Ataturk. Qizilbash is a word of Oghuz Turkic language which was spoken in Iran, let's say some older stages of Azeri Turkic. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
This is not correct. "Qizilbash" (spelled with a ق in Ottoman, thus transliterated as "Q") is NOT a self-designation, but a pejorative name given to the supporters of the Safavids by the Ottomans. It was much later that these supporters adopted this name as a mark of pride. As Halil Inalcik has shown, Turcoman tribes of the region were known for their red caps ("Qizil Börk") already in the 14th century. Further, Turkish scholar Abdülbaki Gölpinarli has proved that the origins of the "Qizilbash" and their red caps (evidently) go back to pre- and early Islamic cults of Azerbaijan, of which the Khurramites are the most famous. The "Qizil Börk" of the 14th century Turcomans of Azerbaijan is a testimony to the Zoroastrian and proto-Shia past of the region. All of these movements - Qizilbash and Khurramites - are spiritual descendants of the Sassanian Mazdakites (W. Hinz, Irans Aufstieg zum Nationalstaat im fünfzehnten Jahrhundert, Berlin and Leipzig 1936, 23; and E.G. Browne, in JRAS [July 1921], 407, quoted in V. Minorsky's review of Hinz's book in Deutsche Literaturzeitung, xxiii [1937], 954). Tājik (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
now you are contradicting yourself. You showed that the name is a respected Iranian designation,. yet said that it was a pejorative Ottoman one for the Shia Turcomans. Anyway these so called Turcomans were not Central Asian Turkmens. They were mixtures of Oghuz Turks with Khorsani Persians, who had moved more to the west. As you said they had Iranian culture. And I am also convinced that there is a linkage between Shiism and PreIslamic dissident Iranian Sasanian tradition. We do not know how Ottomans pronounced the Qaf. It is pronounced differently in different Arabic, Turkic and Persian dielects and languages. If you insist that the Ottoman Turkish should be added, this can be only done in the Perso-Arabic alphabet, without any indications for pronounciation.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 07:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I do not see where I am contradicting myself. The Western Turks are an eclectic people, some of them of original Turkic origins, while others have adopted Turkic languages and/or were designated "Turks" by other Muslims due to various reasons. This could have been because of their involvement in Turkish-dominated armies (Indian sources, for example, termed all Muslim ghilman armies as "Turks", although a large part of those slave soldiers were Kurds, Daylamites, Armenians, etc), because the term "Turk" was sometimes pejorative and sometimes an honorary title, etc. Some of the Turkish-speaking Qizilbash tribes were evidently Turkic, because their clan-names can be traced to ancient Oghuz tribes of Central Asia (Bayat, Dhulghadir, Afshar, etc), while others had artificial names which only explained their homelands, but not their origins: Shamlu (from "Sham" = Syria), Rumlu (from "Rum" = Anatolia), etc. These tribes were almost certainly Turkicized "Non-Turks", because they had no familal roots in the original Central Asian tribal confederations of the Oghuz. Be it so, they all used Turkic as a vernacular, while most of them were also fluent in Persian. As for the name "Qizilbash": it is spelled with a "Q", but it is not a native Azeri word, but adopted from Anatolian Ottoman Turkish. Tājik (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Tajik. Please distinguish Turkic from Turkish, so one can follow your argument better. As I said you are free to argue that it is Ottoman Turkish and not Azeri, but this does not mean that the word is not Azeri or what I would say Iranian Turkic (because these people were not Azeris in fact). The word has had a wider usage in Iran, where it was not used pejoratively. Any way if you say it is Anatolian Turkish too, bring a source and then only write it in Perso-Arabic alphabet. I am not in favor of this however because it distracts the reader and confuses him, because we are not speaking about the Ottoman Empire here.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
That's what you are mistaken in here. The word is of Ottoman Turkish origins, no matter how you put. The spelling of it is one thing, the origins something different. I am not sure about the exact pronunciation of the word, but it could be that the "qaaf" was pronounced [k] in Ottoman. Keep in mind that Iranian Persians do not differentiate between "qaaf" and "ghayn", although it is wrong. Persian-speakers outside of Iran, for example in Afghanistan, correctly differentiate between "qaaf" and "ghayn". Tājik (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

>>>> Do you have any arguments. I do not mean citations from this or the other orientalist, that Qizilbash is Ottoman and not Iranian Turkic. By the way Qaf can be found also in some Persian dialects but yes it is absent in most Persian dialects of Iran. In Azeri however it is pronounced similar to G. In Turkic dielcts of Central and Southern Iran it is pronounced similar to the way Persians pronounce it, gh. As for Ottoman Turkish. As the case it is now in most Turkish dialects of Eastern and central Anatolia it is pronounced the same weay Q similar to how Persian dialects of Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan as well as Uzbek Turkic pronounce q. In istanbuli and western dialects of Ottoman however it is k. I have listened also to some Ottoman recordings and they were also K. In Arabic dialects of the near east, Syria and Lebanon, q is not pronounced the same way as Gheyn is pronounced in Istanbuli Ottoman Turkish.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Babakexorramdin and tajik, you are making oversimplified conclusions based on inadequate information. turkic tribes constantly splitted and merged throughout history. there are still same tribal names exist turkmenistan, azerbaijan and turkey. although some merged tribes adopted new names. for example; there are tribal groups named ismailoghlu, alioghullari (ismail son, sons of ali). they gotten their names from their leaders at a certain time. they may be belong bayindir, chepni, khalach, or any other oghuz greater tribes. though with time new names stick. there are subtribes of greater oghuz tribal federations. such as karakechili (black goats) clan and sarikechili clan of qayi tribe. so shamlu and rumlu tribes may were result of those processes. probably they were collection of tribes hailing from respective areas. even if they weren't turkic, all nomads lives tribal lifes and they had to got tribal names even if they were another ethnicity. so probably they were federations of different tribes coming from same area, and geographical designation became the name of their new federations. of course turks are mixed with khorasani iranians. such as iranians of today mixed with various different groups probably including turks and mongols. your notion of mixed races and ethnicities is unscientific and naive. search for y chromosome haplogroup compositions of different ethnicities and nationalities. there are none large ethnic group, whom all members coming from a single y chromosome haplogroup (i.e. common progenitor). all sizable ethnicities are mix of different peoples intermingled thrroughout history, during migrations and wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.180.86.246 (talk) 06:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Intro

I suggest either to remove any reference to their (alleged) origins and to improve the respective section in this regard, or to add the Georgian origins to it. Like the Azeri origins of the family, the Georgian one is also solely based on the maternal linage. The male linage, and the one that gives the dynasty its name, is Iranian Kurdish. Tājik (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I like your suggestion of separating the Safavid household from the Safavid Iranian empire. This might actually solve the problem of this article for good, although thankfully it has been relatively stable. But the new stuff with Georgian and the talk about turkmens and etc. leads me to believe that the best solution is to separate Safavid household/origin from the Safavid Iranian Empire. So even if the Safavids origin were from Mars, it should not have an effect on the article Safavid Iranian empire, which is the more important article. Note Safavid Persian Empire [[2]] or Safavid Iranian empire empire[[3]] are widely used academic terms and are encompassing a geographical political stucture and a common cultural identity. The Safavids were referred to by Europeans as a Persian empire (geographic sense) but in their own writing, they have used the name Iran for their land and there is lots of documents with this regard. So there should be an article on Safavid Iranian Empire(or Safavid Empire of Iran if others prefer) separate from the Safavid family where their languages (Turkic, Tati, Persian,..), ethnic background (Kurdish Iranic fatherline according to the oldest sources and Safavid scholars, Turkomen,Georgian,Greek motherlines) and their own cultural identification (Arab-Shi'i descendants of the Prophet after 1501 which is really their own perceptions of themselves around 1501) etc. can be discussed. Much like Shirvanshahs who considered themselves descendants of Sassanids and were Persianized, although strictly their fatherline was Arab but they had mixed with Iranian families and Georgians and others I personally think preception is the main component of ethnic identification, so if Safavids considered themselves primarily as Seyyed Arabs and Shi'i when they ruled, that is their identity and that is what the common people at that time thought of them. There are plenty of statements from Safavids themselves who are proud to be Seyyeds but I have not seen a statement that they are proud to be descendants of Oghuz Khan or Cyrus the Great or Diako or etc. Linguistic identity takes predominance starting from the 19th century and there is no doubt Safavid's primary tongue after 1501 was Azeri Turkic(that is their family), the military/court language was also mainly Azeri Turkish while the administration language and also the main language of culture, art was Persian. The Safavid household shows Turkic, Tati, Persian and etc at various stages. The current stuff about Kurdish, Turkomen, Georgian and etc. should be moved to an article on Safavid households. So in short, I support your suggestion of separating the empire from the household and then writing something very small on the household in this article and referring it to the main article. Of course I might not have as much time to contribute, but I think all the sources you need to represent various opinions on the household are fairly extant in this article. Also all the sources you need on the actual empire are present in in EI, EIr, and other books in google. Of course the effort for all of this might be too time-consuming, so I would first create a stub on the Safavid household and then create an article and finally remove the stuff from here to there. I would write one line about their origin here and then say for details see: Safavid household. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I fully agree. There should be two separate articles:
Tājik (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The Azeri origins are based not only on maternal but also paternal lineage (Sheykh Haydar already had Azeri origins). The Georgian origins are nowhere closely equivalent, and this is the POV pushed using the same source repeated 3 times by Babakexorramdin. There is more ground to claim Pontic Greek heritage of Safavids than Georgian. I oppose dividing the article from the point of view of dividing one problem into two problems. Atabəy (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Paternal origin I think means son of son of son of son ...X (all the way to what is traceable or at least kept in the family tree. I personally do not know more than my great grandfather but Safavids seem to have kept their family tree). Eventually it will lead to Adam or the first man or if you believe in evolution some cell organism. From this perspective all written Safavid sources mention paternal origin as traceable to Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah Kurd Sanjani/Sanjari (the ones after 1501 get rid of the Kurd Sanjani part) or through Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah to the the first Shi'i Imam. Paternal lineage of course became mixed also as Safavids married Turkomans, Greek, Tajiks and later on Georgians/Circassians. But this is the case with most important dynasties of the region: Achaemenids, Parthians, Sassanids, Abbassids, Ghaznavids, Seljuqids, Shirwanshah, Ottomans, Moghuls and etc. I really think that Safavids tried to claim descent from the first Shi'i Imam makes it an interesting article within itself. But the last thing we want to do is double the trouble. Suggesting one thing is an idea and doing it is another. If Tajik or anyone else is interested in dividing the article (which I do support but will not be the primary active participant), they should write stubs for both Safavid Dynasty and Safavid Empire and then some neutral people to vote on the idea, once there is a clearer picture. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I have never read anything that Safavids thought they were Arabs. True they made a family tree which claimed that they were seyyeds. But talking about self-perceptions most Iranians do not consider Seyyeds as being Arabs. Asking randomly a young man in Iran who happens to be seyyed about his race. He most probably will answer something like Aryan, Caucasian, white, or even Middle Eastern but is very unlikely that he says he is an Arab. True that their ancestor was a Kurd, but Safavids were very clear about their self perception. They were Shiite Iranians. Not really tied to this or the other part of the empire. They were in fact paniranian. In all their documents they called ethemselves Shah of iran and nothing else. From Shah Abbas the first onwards we see that there was a bias in favor of the Georgian element in the empire. Most military and important governors were Georgian. Shah Abbas himself was half or 3-4 Georgian and most of the most important political family in Iran the Undiladze was Georgian. It might be true that Undiladze's married some Persian girls, but still these families are Georgian. I wonder why Atabek is so anti-Georgian. Probably because he belives in a history in which Qizilbash were Turks and they ruled the empire. Sorry but this veiw is not true. Qizilbash were Turkic IRANIANS and their power was restricted at the peak of the Safavid times, during Shah Abbas time.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
In fact it is quite possible that the claim by safavid that they were seyyed was purely political.--Xashaiar (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
You are partly correct that I should word it better. But I wrote a long response which I will e-mail you. Note Seyyed at the time would be considered a separate group, but it does not mean Arab of Iraq, Arabia or etc. But just as a separate group in the 15th/16th century. It is not the case today (since the late 19th century) in most of Iran, but even in more traditional Afghanistan, Pakistan..Seyyeds still have a preception of themselves a separate group and of course this does not contradict their loyalty to the state they founded and Shah of Iran which they called themselves and etc. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

IT IS AN AZERBAIJAN EMPIRE!!!

Why is it called SAFAVI PERSIAN DINASTY???It was an Azerbaijanian empire!!!!!!!!!!!And shah Ismail was an azerbaijanian,he was speaking and writing in azeri.Even he wrote poems only in azeri —Preceding unsigned comment added by HISTORIAN FARIDA (talk • contribs) 15:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The empire is Persian in the sense of political, administrative and land denotation. We are not talking about ethnicity. Also Azerbaijan is a province of Persia at that time and in the sense, the term Azerbaijan at that time had no ethnic denotation/connotations (which starts only in the late 19th/early 20th century). Infact the name is much older and goes back to 2300 years ago or so. As per the ethnicity of the various Kings, it has been discussed. They were mixed and bilingual and etc. So that is why classifying them is difficult. They also wrote in Persian and their ancestors wrote in Persian and Tati. But from strictly point of view of self-identity, all manuscripts trace their descent to Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah, so they aware of their background but after 1501, they connected Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah with the Prophet of Islam. The current version of the article is okay, although it is preferred that their complex origin be moved to the origin section since there various contradictory sources can have their say. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing origins from intro

Safavid dynasty has Azerbaijani Turkic and Kurdish origins, the references from a variety of publications listed on the page say so, and were discussed for years to achieve this consensus: "Azerbaijani and Kurdish origins". So anyone desiring to remove them, please, substantiate your edits. I restored to prior version. Atabəy (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, the Georgian reference was using same Aptin Khanbaghi references 3 times, as a book, separately as URL link to the book, and third as page number of the book. So merged them into one.Atabəy (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

[4] comment - "azerbaijan was and is part of Iran, so was transcaucasia", I am not sure if Wikipedia is a place for such irredentism. Atabəy (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

there is no irredentism. The sentence just did not make sense. The addition of Azerbaijan was done by nationalists and di not make sense at all. I do not see why Azerbaijan should have had a especial treatment, why not Mazandaran? Khorasan? Chukhur Saad (=Armenia)?, etc... etc... having ruled over Iran at that time includes all these subunits. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

refined

I refined the intro after many different edits by different users whose final form was this: [5]. It has sourced information and the dispute tag was removed. It seems the article is still very poor about the political and sociological aspect of the era. Since there won't be any agreement or concensus on the background, one can emphasize Kurdish, Azerbaijani, Georgian components in their own section and sources, while the intro mentions all of these ancestries. Hamid Algar has done a decent job on bringing the most important aspect of the Safavids to view. That is the Shi'ification of primarily Sunni areas: [6]. But this portion, which is the most important legacy of the dynasty is lacking in the wikipedia article. Professor Rudi Mathee has also written an excellent article on Safavids. With these articles, hopefully the Safavid entry can improve and there does not seem to be anything controversial disagreement on the political/sociological aspect of the era from the viewpoint of Wiki-users. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nepaheshgar, the Georgian component in Safavid ancestry is based on a single reference, book by Aptin Khanbaghi, while the multitude of other references mention Kurdish and Azeri Turkic ancestry. So why all of a sudden, only by POV pushing of one contributor duplicating a single reference, this is pushed so much. First of all, the background is not Georgian, but Pontic Greek, due to Ismail's heritage and intermarriages of his Akkoyunlu ancestors with Greeks of Trebizond.
Also, why did Safavid dynasty all of a sudden become named Safavid Persian dynasty? This is pure nationalist POV. The state of Safavids was known as Dowlat-e Safaviyye. There was no word Persian or Iranian in how Safavids titled their own state or dynasty. So why this is raised to be asserted as a fact in encyclopedic article? Actually, it's funny that those who add these invented suffixes feel very insecure about the belonging of Safavids. Did anyone ever deny that they were associated with contemporary Iran that this should be added in titles out of nowhere? Atabəy (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is not about Esmail I but Safavid dynasty as a whole. Greek is mentioned because of him, then Georgian should be mentioned because of Shah Abbas, Suleyman, Safi and etc. For example Encyclopedia of Islam Roger Savory mentions several Shahs had Georgian/Circassian mothers, so if you need more sources, it can easily be provided. Here is an excerpt: "This fight was complicated greatly by the emergence of the (aramas an important source of political power, as Circassian and Georgian mothers of royal princes intrigued to secure the succession of their particular sons."(Encyclopedia of Islam). Or another source:"According to John Fryer (II, pp. 290-91), the queen mother in the 17th century was always a Georgian. In reality, she was usually Circassian, though the difference is not always clear."(Encyclopedia Iranica). The various components of the ancestries of the dynasty as a whole is mentioned and is not confined to a single Shah. The Greek, Georgian, Turkomen background are all through mothers-side, and if Turkomen is mentioned, others should be mentioned. And there is nothing wrong with Babak's POV with this regard, since other mothelines like Turkoman were mentioned and different users are adding different materials, so it might as well encompass all the ancestries. The other option is to move the ancestries to the origin section. Shah Abbas I's mother, Shah Esmail I's one, Shah Esmail Father's mother and etc have different ancestries. So adding the various ancestries is factual. I removed Safavid Persian dynasty, but Safavid Persian empire is well sourced[7] and the Safavids also titled their own state as Iran(one title does not exclude others: United States, America, England, Britain..etc.) as it can be seen by official letters or history books. Europeans at the time and in English language at the time mainly referred to the state as Persian and the kings as Kings of Persia/Persian Kings and etc, and so such terminology is persided. As for the usage of Iran, for example a sample letter of Shah Abbas to Jalal al-Din Akbar: “ و چون خاطر عاطر پادشاهی عالم پناهی متوجه تفحص حالات ایران...بدین جهت...شرح مجملی از حالات .. مصدع ملازمان رفیع مقام عالیشان میگردد ” (Matini, J. (1992). Iran dar gozasht-e ruzegaaran [Iran in the Passage of Times], Majalle-ye Iran-shenasi [A Journal of Iranian Studies] 4(2): 243-268. ) Many history books from that era as well letters of the kings themselves mention Iran but one example is sufficient. Safavid "Iranian empire" is also fine but less common in google books. Both terms encompass geography much like "mughal Indian empire". On the Georgian/Circassian mother-line of various Shahs, this is sourced and it is not only one source. Just like various mothers in the lineage of the dynasty were Turkmens, there were also Georgian and Circassian mothers, so it makes sense to list them as well. But arguments and counter-arguments for the fatherline origin can be put in each section. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Besides the official letters of Shah Abbas and etc., one can see it frequently in history books:

[8].--Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Besides the above letter of Shah Abbas, here is another one from Shah Abbass to Sir Anthony Shirely:

"و آنچه در باب ابریشم نوشته شده بعد از این ولایت عجم ابریشم به حلب نبرند..بسیار خوب است چه بهتر از این کار که ابریشم عجم..به هرمز آورند" Word used for Iran here is "Velayate-e-Ajam" (The Realm of Persia). So in letters of Shah Abbas both Iran and Velayat-e-Ajam (Persia in a sense) are used, besides the hundreds of references in variety of history books mentioning Iran and Iranians... Safavid Persian dynasty was not also invented and it has been used[9]. Persian empire is obviously greatly sourced and it has a cultural and geographic bearing and does not necessarily mean Safavids were purely Iranic background or etc, but rather a long term convention and the fact that the country was called Persia by the West and in their own writing Persia and Iran is used. The mixed ethnic background of the ruling dynasty is covered in its own section and users can put whatever source that they desire (even contradicting other sections) as long as it meets reliability and objectivity terms. Here is where conflicting viewpoints can be put and one source might emphasize one background and another source, could emphasize another and somes users will believe X is correct and others believe Y is correct and in the end from a policy point of view, as long both X and Y meet reliability and objectivity terms, then they are allowed. After several years, obviously there is not going to be a concensus on the origin and new users like Babak will insist on Caucasian origin as well. If one thinks about it from percentage point of view, the last Shahs were around 80% Circassian/Georgian in terms of ancestry. Given that various users have their own ideas and sources contradict each other, we might as well mention all the mother/fatherlines and ancestries.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I should add besides Safavids themselves, Ottomans also referred to them as Kings of Iran while the Safavids assumed the title Shahanshah of Iran. "The Safavid kings called themselves, among other appellations, the “dog of the shrine of ʿAli” (kalb-e āstān-e ʿAli), while assuming the title of Šāhanšāh (the king of kings) of Iran. It must be remembered that the title of the king of Iran was also used by Āq Quyunlu rulers (the direct predecessors of the Safavids) who presented themselves as successors to the glorious mythical kings of ancient Persia (Faridun, Jamšid, and Kaykāvus). Even Ottoman sultans, when addressing the Āq Quyunlu and Safavid kings, used such titles as the “king of Iranian lands” or the “sultan of the lands of Iran” or “the king of kings of Iran, the lord of the Persians” or the “holders of the glory of Jamšid and the vision of Faridun and the wisdom of Dārā.” They addressed Shah Esmaʿil as: “the king of Persian lands and the heir to Jamšid and Kay-ḵosrow” (Navāʾi, pp. 578, 700-702, 707). During Shah ʿAbbās’s reign (q.v.) the transformation is complete and Shiʿite Iran comes to face the two adjacent Sunni powers: the Ottoman Empire to the west and the Kingdom of Uzbeks to the east."[10]. The Safavids in turn and the Ottomans themselves called their sate "Rum" (Greece). And besides Safavids themselves calling their land Iran(see letters of Shah Abbas), themselves Shahanshah of Iran, and their rival Ottoman calling them Kings\Rulers of Iran, Europeans used simply Persian/Persia and that is why Persian empire which referenced too many times in Academia used [11]. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Multiple Ancestry is Correct

Everything seems sourced to me and the importance of each ancestry has its own section, since there won't ever be an agreement on which is the most important. But it clear all these ancestries were present and played a role. Multiple ancestry also diffuses the ethnic ownership and claims by ethno-nationalists. In this case, no one can dispute the multiple ancestries and remove valid sources they dislike--Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Section [12] of the article, claims: "Georgian[17][18][19][20]", where [17],[18],[20] refer to the same pages of the same book by Aptin Khanbaghi. So this is a POV based on a single source by forging it into multiple references. Atabəy (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed the other three as their formatting was not correct, but there are other references to Georgian/Circassians mother as I mentioned. Encyclopedia of Islam and Iranica and contemporary sources mention that the Queen mother throughout the 16th century was Georgian. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


Dear Babak, you might want to also add information on Georgian hold over the empire in its latter days. According to the article "Georgians in the Safavid administration"(see Iranica and the Wikipedia link):"Following the slaughter of a great many Qezelbāš, the Georgians under Shah Ṣafī consolidated their hold over key positions in the inner palace, the bureaucracy, and the military. The shah’s own chamberlain (mehtar) was a white eunuch of Georgian origin (Olearius, p. 571; Taḏkerat al-molūk, tr. Minorsky, pp. 127, 138). Aside from the positions of qollar-āqāsī and dārūḡa of Isfahan, they virtually monopolized the posts of dīvānbegī (q.v., chief justice) and sepahsālār (military commander). These and other positions tended to become hereditary, and one powerful functionary typically held more than one simultaneously. Thus Ḵosrow Mīrzā served as dīvānbegī and dārūḡa of Isfahan under Shah ʿAbbās, played a crucial role in the accession of Shah Ṣafī in 1038/1629, and was made qollar-āqāsī the following year, on which occasion he was renamed Rostam Khan (Eskandar Beg, p. 1078, tr. p. 1302; Moḥammad-Maʿṣūm, p. 46). In 1632, following a rebellion in Kartli, he became wālī of that part of Georgia (Eskander Beg and Wāla Eṣfahānī, pp. 114, 136; Moḥammad-Maʿṣūm, p. 144). Having been appointed to all of Georgia in 1058/1648, he remained in power until his death in 1069/1658. He is not to be confused with another Rostam Beg, who was dīvānbegī in the last years of Shah ʿAbbās I’s reign, and served as tofangčī-āqāsī (rifleman commander), sepahsālār, and beglerbeg of Azerbaijan between 1040/1631 and his execution in 1053/1643. Rostam Beg’s younger brother, ʿAlīqolī Khan, had a remarkable career spanning fifty years, during which he served as dīvānbegī under Shah Ṣafī (Eskander Beg and Wāla Eṣfahānī, pp. 146, 166; Moḥammad-Maʿṣūm, p. 197; Waḥīd Qazvīnī, p. 47; Olearius, p. 671), held the post of sepahsālār and the attendant position of beglerbegī of Azerbaijan between 1058/1648 and 1064/1654, fell out of favor, but was rehabilitated by Shah Solaymān, who reinstated him as sepahsālār. Chardin called him the effective ruler of the country at the time of his death in 1667 (Waḥīd Qazvīnī, pp. 138, 174-75; Tavernier, I, p. 638-43; Chardin, IX, pp. 555-63, X, p. 70)."--Nepaheshgar (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


POV

There is tremendous amount of POV being inserted into this article over time, so would like to raise these issues:

  • 1. It's claimed that Safavid dynasty was Iranian, when at the time of their rise to power there was no such state as Iran more over, having Azeri Turkic and Circassian/Georgian/Pontic Greek roots, dynasty could not have been Iranian as ethnicity too.
  • 2. Although Persian language is moved in front of Azeri, there is not a single decent reference (except from POV article by Iran Chamber Society writer/blogger?) who claims that Persian was adopted by Safavid dynasty. NONE of the other references, claim that Persian was the official language of Safavid court or administration. NONE I could find in Google Books or other sources. In fact, some references, like Lockhart and Mazzaoui, and others are incorrectly cited under Persian language, while they claim that Azeri Turkish was the official language.

Please, check and present the references properly. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Your point one is not even wrong. If there was no Iran then would you please state why "Safavid Iran" is an established term (NOTE: I mean "scholarly" works, so maybe that's the source of false claims we see)? When shah/shahanshah of Iran was the official title of Iranian kings long long before Safavid came up, then would you make it clear for us what do you mean by "state"? --Xashaiar (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

On point 1: The Safavids were Iranian dynasty in terms of geography: [13][http://books.google.com/books?q=% 22Safavid+Persian+empire%22][14][15]. Note you have put Shirvanshah established a native "azeri" state. One understands Azeri here in the geographical sense that they established a state in the territory of the modern republic of Azerbaijan. As per states with the name Iran, the Ak-Koyunli rulers were called Shahs of iran and so were the Safavids. But in the case of Shirvanshah, with only that single source (which the author is not an expert in ancient history), they were Persianized Arabs and their official language was Persian.

If it was ethnicity, the concensus are Safavid were Kurdish origin. But that issue is discussed elsewhere in the article. But in terms of cultural identity, since at least Esmail I they were not Kurdish and they seemed to have a combination of Turkish and Persian cultures.

On point 2. You have not read the references in the article. But two academic sources should be sufficient:

Michel M. Mazzaoui, "Islamic Culture and literature in the early modern period" in Robert L. Canfield, Turko-Persia in historical perspective, Cambridge University Press, 1991. pg 87:{{cquote|Shah Ismai'l wrote poetry in Turkish. The administration nevertheless was Persian, and the Persian language was the vehicle of diplomatic correspondence (insha'), of belles-letters (adab) and of history (Tarikh)."

John Perry(John R. Perry, "Turkic-Iranian contacts", Encyclopaedia Iranica, January 24, 2006):

.

I believe the sources were misplaces with regards to administration language and I will fix that.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to add the fact that Iranian empire here is in the geographical-culture sense rather than ethnic Iranic since the ethnicity of Safavids is described in its own section. But I will do the same for the Shirvanshahs since there is only one source which is not really written by ancient historian. Hope that clears up the matter because by Iranian empire, we do not mean they were purely ethnic Iranic origin. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Well a sentence in this direction would be very good addition that Nepaheshgar can do. But it is important to note that "Iran" is an ENGLISH term that I am "slowly coming to the conclusion" that it was a wrong transliteration, because it should have been "Eran". This means that the designation "Iranian" is the correct term in this article any confusion related to which is because of wrong transliteration which is not fault of any one here.--Xashaiar (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
True, now I have distinguished the empire/geographical/state sense (which was Iranian) with the ancestry which was mixed and was Iranic through the fatherline only.. The term Iranian should not cause confusion though, since the partial Turkmen ancestry is also described and we do not mean they were pure Iranic dynasty, but rather they were Iranian in terms of state identity, geography, people of the country of Iran and etc. Usually I prefer distinguishing between Iranic and Iranian. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
With due respect I disagree with you. The tern Iranian should come back to its place. Safavids were Iranian in terms of STATE. Why did you remove that? I do not care about ethnicity of their grand grand father or their wives... the fact is that they were Iranian in the same meaning that should be understood. "Safavid Iran" is a correct term for which there are very many books with this term as "title" (see this search and this)--Xashaiar (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, it is an Iranian in terms of State and I think that is mentioned. If it is not please re-insert it. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, but Nepaheshgar, using the same geographic term, Safavids could be just about any, Turkish, Azerbaijani, Iranian, Afghani, Iraqi, because they encompassed the territories of these countries. Why it's called Iranian, when the official name that Safavids gave to their country was "Dowlat-e Safaviyeh". There was no word Iran used in this label. I don't understand these attempts to label Iranian all over the place, as if doing or not doing so changes proven Iranian affiliation with Safavid dynasty. It's not quite encyclopedic, I have to say. For example, Mazzaoui reference that is used (p. 87) to claim that Persian was a language of administration, somehow omits p. 86, which claims that Azeri Turkic was the language of royalty, etc. and Safavids were essentially a "Turkish" dynasty [16]. So in present situation, I think the most fair approach would be just naming Safavids as they were, Safavids, without attaching any kind of prefixes which aren't based on what Safavids called themselves but interpretation thereof. Atabəy (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "turkish"? According to Encyclopedia of Islam "There seems now to be a consensus among scholars that the §afawid family hailed from Persian Kurdistan, and later moved to Adharbaydjan, finally settling in the 5th/11th century at Ardabil." That's it.--Xashaiar (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
That is a long debate.. in my opionion ethnic Origin though is not the same as cultural identity. But I have put different sections so that portion is not convoluted and everyone can put their own opinion based on sources of course. I would rather name it though Turkic components and Iranic components since Safavids were product of both to various degrees. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

On usage of Iran

Atabey, well I think your point about administrative language was resolved. Note also the same source Mazzaoui references sates: "Safavid power with its distinctive Persian-Shi'i culture, however, remained a middle ground between its two mighty Turkish neighbors.". Yes the dynasty was Turcophone but they were Iranian too, since they came out of Iran and their stae was called Iran. Just like there is no contradiction between being an American and being of Anglo-Saxon or African heritage. So the point about administrative language is resolved. The Moghuls of India are called an Indian dynasty but ethnicly they were descendants of Changhiz Khan.

But you are mistaken on the fact that the Safavids did not call their realm as Iran. You say it is Dowlat Safavviya (what source?) but that does not contradict it being called Iran. Because Safavids in their letters have used molk-e-Ajam (Persian realm), Iran and etc and I do not think there one was standard. Because standards were not a major convention back then like they are in the 20th/21th century. As long as Iran, Ajam(Persia), Molk-e-'Ajam (Persian realm) is used frequently for their whole realm that is sufficient. I already brought wealth of references, letters from Shah Abbas, Ottomans and etc. where the name of Iran is used for the state. See my message above: in 02:15, 2 April 2009. As for the usage of Iran, for example a sample letter of Shah Abbas to Jalal al-Din Akbar: “ و چون خاطر عاطر پادشاهی عالم پناهی متوجه تفحص حالات ایران...بدین جهت...شرح مجملی از حالات .. مصدع ملازمان رفیع مقام عالیشان میگردد ” (Matini, J. (1992). Iran dar gozasht-e ruzegaaran [Iran in the Passage of Times], Majalle-ye Iran-shenasi [A Journal of Iranian Studies] 4(2): 243-268. ). Now is there a letter from Safavid Shahs like Shah Abbas calling their whole realm Turkey, Afghanistan, Iraq, Azerbaijan or etc in official letters to say British? Here is another one: here is another one from Shah Abbass to Sir Anthony Shirely: "و آنچه در باب ابریشم نوشته شده بعد از این ولایت عجم ابریشم به حلب نبرند..بسیار خوب است چه بهتر از این کار که ابریشم عجم..به هرمز آورند" Word used for Iran here is "Velayate-e-Ajam" (The Realm of Persia).

And as an example of Iran being used by the enemies of Safavids see the poems of Sultan Selim about defeating Iran and Shah Esmail I. The multiple ethnic identity of Safavid dynasty is one thing. But the state was called Iran as this simple letter of Shah Abbas shows, or I have elucidated many history books above. So they are Iranian since they are from the state of Iran. An ethnic identity (say Turkish or Talysh) is not incompatible with a state identity and we see it in France, USA, Iran, Russia and etc. None of these countries are mono-ethnic. Furthermore, as I said it is well sourced in google books[17] and all European travellers have also called the state as Persia. You can find it in European maps at the time. So in order to make it short: both Safavids domestically have called their land/state/realm as Iran and their enemies the Ottomans have used Iran and in the end Europeans have used Persia. So I think it is fair. Note I am not even arguing from the fact of scholarly convention because Wikipedia does not care about fairness but sources. Safavid Iran also occurs 700+ [18] in google books and Safavid Persia occurs 699. And if it is about Encyclopedic, then Britannica, Iranica and and Encyclopedia of Islam used Safavid Iran, Safavid Persia and etc. But I have just taken the fairness consideration without Wikipedia rules into account and I would have given weight to your arguments had the Kings themselves not constantly refer to their whole realm as Iran and used say XYZ or Afghanistan or Iraq or etc in their official letters. Or had European maps put their whole entire realm as Afghanistan, Iraq, Azerbaijan or etc. instead of Persia, then again there would be some sort of argument. All of the capitals of Safavids (Tabriz, Qazvin and Isfahan) are in Iran also. I would also read "Iran" in Safavid historiography [19] to see the frequency of the word.

I will quote just part of this [20]:


If Shah Abbas called his realm Iran and his enemies called it Iran and Europeans called it Persia, then it is obvious any other name is anachronism. Afghanistan became a state in 1750 and Azerbaijan/Iraq in the 20th century. Iran was a name of a complete state in the Safavid time..I also have Chardin and etc.. where he says the people call their land Iran although I am on travel and cannot locate it immediately. I have outlines the frequent usage of Iran throughout the post-Islamic era in an article and I pretty much stopped at Safavids because it is obvious. All one needs to do is simply read Persian and primary sources. Infact if someone wants to be a serious historian or even do it for ahobby (which I consider myself doing it for a hobby) of the area, then one needs to know Persian and Arabic. There is no other way or else one cannot access the 99% of primary sources which have not been translated. Like the letters of Shah Abbas full of the word Iran, Ajam and etc...--Nepaheshgar (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Also to shed clarity on why the administration language was Persian: "Thirdly, military and political power in Persia was generally in the hands of ethnic Turks, while ethnic Persians, called Tajiks, were dominant in the areas of administration and culture. As Persians of Kurdish ancestry and of a non-tribal background, the Safavids did not fit this pattern, though the state they set up with the assistance of Turkmen tribal forces of eastern Anatolia closely resembled this division in its makeup." ("Safavids" in Iranica"). Note "Persians of Kurdish ancestry" does not mean ethnic Persians (he says ethnic Persians are called Tajiks) but geographical designation and probably the author used European conventions where the Kings were called Kings of Persia. Also I just pointed to these primary sources like Shah Abbas's letters, or Ottoman poems or Chardin and etc on why Iran and not say Afghanistan. And this was so, in order that I do not need to necessarily use google books with 1400+ google books "Safavid Persia", "Safavid Iran", "Iranian empire", European maps and etc and just say "it is sourced", since we know now why it is called Safavid Iranian empire. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

On usage of language and official language

Official language:

I should note that the Cambridge history of Iran has an article on "Safavid State" which would have the ultimate authority in this book. It mentions Persian being the official language: "Depressing though the condition in the country may have been at the time of the fall of Safavids, they cannot be allowed to overshadow the achievements of the dynasty, which was in many respects to prove essential factor in the development of Persia in modern times. These include the maintanence of Persian as the official language and of the present-day boundaries of the country, adherence to the Twelever Shi'i, the monarchical system, the planning and architectural feartures of the urban centers, the centralised administration of the state, the alliance of the Shi'i Ulama with the merchant bazaars, and the symbiosis of the Persian-speaking population with important non-Persian, especially Turkish speaking minorities" (Roemer, H. R. (1986). "The Safavid Period". The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 6: The Timurid and Safavid Periods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 189–350. ISBN 0521200946. Page 331) ----

However, the Cambridge history of Iran article (page 950) is specific to Persian literature rather than Safavids and those authors are not Safavid experts. He is a famous Iranian scholar (Zabiollah Safa) who is an expert on literature but not history. It is sort of undo weight to have his quote, but it is no big deal as long as we know who the author is and I have left it since it is sourced correctly with the author's name "Zabiollah Safa". They are correct in terms of court and military but they are wrong in other domains. Howerver, Savory states: One of the factors which helped to create this negative view on Safawid literature was the change of literary taste in Persia which occurred about the middle of the 18th century, shortly after the Safawid period had come to a close. This brought about a strong condemnation of the excesses to which the Indian style in Persian poetry had led and a “return” to the standards of earlier styles. As a result, a neo-classicist view of post- Tīmūrid literature was established which not only left its mark on Persian literary criticism until the present day, but also had a great impact on evaluations by Western scholars. Only recently a more positive appreciation of the Indian style is emerging"(Encyclopedia of Islam). Thus Savory's article criticizes the Cambridge history of Iran article with this regard. I am not sure where it says religious dignaties official language was Azerbaijani Turkic, but virtually all 12er Shi'i text written by theologians of that era are in Arabic and Persian and I brought a source specific to religious officials (many of them from Lebanon) written by a scholar who studied this subject and it says: "Although the Arabic language was still the medium for religious scholastic expression, it was precisely under the Safavids that hadith complications and doctrinal works of all sorts were being translated to Persian. The 'Amili (Lebanese scholars of Shi'i faith) operating through the Court-based religious posts, were forced to master the Persian language; their students translated their instructions into Persian. Persianization went hand in hand with the popularization of 'mainstream' Shi'i belief.". Overall the Safavids were not a mono-ethnic or mono-lingual Iranian empire and thus it is good to use scholarly sources to clarify what language was used in what domain.

Persian was the language of administration and coins. Turkic was the language of the court (which was the language of the rulers) and the army. With this regard, the rulers also knew Persian too but their primary language was Turkish. But if anything, it would be language of administration and coins that are official, I also have a source: "The Safavid dynasty under Shah Ismail (961/1501) adopted Persian and the Shi'ite form of Islam as the national language and religion." but the Cambridge source is strong and this source not as so. Roemer is a major Safavid scholar. Zabiollah Safa is not.

But if the matter is about official language of the empire, then it is civil administration since the court of King was simply in a city (Isfahan, Qazvin, Tabriz) but the admnistrative language was used all over the country. I also note Mathee who speaks of a core language: "The political system that emerged under them had overlapping political and religious boundaries and a core language, Persian, which served as the literary tongue, and even began to replace Arabic as the vehicle for theological discourse"[21] and "The Persian focus is also reflected in the fact that theological works also began to be composed in the Persian language and in that Persian verses replaced Arabic on the coins."[22]. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Nepaheshgar, official is usually the language in which rulers of the country conduct official correspondence. There is no doubt that Qajars, who were Turks, did so with Persian. But with Safavids this isn't so. We have already identified that Turkic was the language of Safavids by the time of their rise to power and was used in the court. It was the language used in correspondence of Safavid shahs with at least one foreign monarch, hence that's an official language as it's used by the officials of the state.
I think it's does not make any sense to claim that Persian was the only or a primary official language because it was on coins, and somehow Azeri Turkic was not up to being officials, and doing so based on single source (like it's done now). In the United States, the coins carry Latin inscription "E Pluribus Unum", does that mean that Latin is the official language of the U.S.?
So the right way would be to say that Azeri Turkic was for the first time used as official language used by the officials of the state.
I am not sure what's meant by "maintenance of Persian as the official language", if there was no formal integral Iranian state prior to Safavids for at least 7 centuries. Thus, there was no official language to be maintained. Atabəy (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It is sourced from a respectable source, so you would need something that says Azeri Turkic was official as source. But Turkish was not official since it was not the language of administration. The key is administration. The administration (book keeping, running the provinces, etc.) was mainly in the hands of Tajik elements. The Shahs have correspondences in both Turkish and Persian, but what matters is that administration of the language was Persian. For example Shah Abbas's correspondence to the English or Moghuls are in Persian. Shah Esmail I's to the Uzbek and Ottomans is in Turkish and Uzbeks/Ottomans replied back in Persian. But the administration language in bulk is in Persian and even the first Safavid King appointed four Persian Viziers one after another. So one should not confuse the language spoken by the Shahs (which was both Turkish and Persian but probably more Turkish) and the ruling class with the official language which includes administration of the empire as the key point. Administration language of the empire was not Turkish. The Qajars also talked in Turkish in their court as well, but again administration was Persian. I also have some Persian commands from the last or one to last Safavid Shah as well. But again the number of texts (Persian and Azeri) from all the Shahs combined is probably not even one in ten thousand of all the administration texts whose official language was Persian. So one has to take into account the official language of the Safavid empire itself , not just the works of the ruling dynasty. An official language would be one that is used for texts, documents, coins, commands of governors to cities, and etc. throughout the whole empire. So just being a court language is not the same as official throughout the whole empire, and I agree, Turkish was the court language as well.
The Safavid court initially was probably mainly Turkish (except Tajik Vazirs and ministers who were only second to the Shah in power in name) but after getting rid of the Qezelbash forces and moving the capital to Isfahan, Persian was also used in the court. For example scholars like Mullah Sadra, Shaykh Bahai and host of others were present in Shah Abbas court and their writings are in Persian and Arabic. It is true some of the Shahs had written correspondence in Turkish as well as Persian, but that does not make Turkish an official language, since it was not the administrative language. As per 7 centuries, Persian has been official under Samanids, Timurid, Khwarizmid Shahs, Seljuqids, Ilkhanids, Ghaznavids, Eldiguzids, Shirwanshahs, Kara-Koyun/Aq-Qoyunlu, various local Atabek dynasty (Atabakan-i Yazd, Kerman, Lorestan, Fars..) and etc. Moghuls of India too were originally Turkicized Mongols (like Qajars) but the official language of the Moghul Indian empire was Persian. All these states (except Moghuls/Shiwanshahs) ruled present day territory of Iran and maintained Persian as the official language of the Diwan and adminisration and Persian was always present in their court (and many of these Shahs persumably knew Turkish or Mongolian as well). Anyhow, you might disagree but just like I brought an exact source stating Persian was official language (which I intrepret as administration primarily), you would need a reliable NPOV 3rd party source for Turkish. The fact of the matter is administration of the empire was mainly by Tajik elements and also Turkish elements declined relative to Tajik elements when the Ghezelbash soldiers were dismissed by the Shah Abbas while Esmail I and Tahmasp did their best to get rid off their influence. In the United States, the coins also contain English "1 penny, united states of America, Liberty and etc." and "E Pluribus Unum" is expression that has entered English much like other Greek/Latin expressions such as "Q.E.D" and "etc" (Et Cetera). Note it is in the dictionary too [[23]]. If you believe Azeri Turkish was also official (which in my opinion it is not because it is not administration language of the whole empire), then you can include a 3rd party source that explicitly mentions it as offical. As long as there is a reliable 3rd party source written by Western expert on Safavids that calls Turkish also explcitly as official, then it is no problem to put it there also. But again administration language was not Turkish, so such a source is wrong even if it is found, but from Wikipedia's perspective, it is fine as long as it is a high level quality source (like Cambridge history of Iran). Overall I think Persian was the primary language based on comparison of the output of the empire. That is most of the texts from the empire wether administrative/government or non-government is in Persian. Second is in Arabic (many religious works) and third was Azeri-Turkic. I would not hesitate to say the amount of Persian texts relative to Azeri-Turkish from the whole period of Safavids is easily much larger. But nevertheless I do not deny Azeri-Turkic was a very important language in terms of the court and the army (at least up to Shah Abbas). And "court" and "army" are listed in the article now as well.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Well your claim "but after getting rid of the Qezelbash forces and moving the capital to Isfahan, Persian was also used in the court" is already disputed by one reference: According to European travelers, Turkish was the dominant language of the court and high-ranking officials in Isfahan. Atabəy (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a contradiction. The European traveller could have witnesssed the Shah talking to the army or some relatives, or soldiers and minister to Turkish. But there was also Persian Viziers, officials and scholars and etc., some who did not know Turkish. Like say Mullah Sadra or Shaykh Bahai who appeared in the Shah's court and conversation of Shah Abbas and Shaykh Bahai for example in Persian is also recorded. So just simple conversations between Shah Abbas and Shaykh Bahai say in the court which has been passed down in books is an example of Persian in the court. Of course the Shah's mother, and family spoke Turkish as their first language and thus I am not suprised that Turkish was used heavily in the court and it would be the primary language. Amir Hassanpour by the way is not a specialist in Safavids, but as I said if you see a Safavid specialist use the word official for Azeri-Turkish and then of course it is fine to include it although again the administration (in my own personal opinion) is the bottom line for defining the official language of the state. Since the court itself was in one city where-as an official language is something that is vastly used for administration throughout the empire. So I do not disagee that Azeri-Turkish was used in the court of Safavid Kings and if I had to guess, it was used more than Persian since the Shah, the prince, the queen, the family of the Shah were all Turcophones. That is in terms of spoken language of the court, I would not be suprised if the ratio of Azeri-Turkish to Persian was 9:1 where-as in terms of texts from the era, Persian to Azeri-Turkish is much higher. Both languages played their own role in the empire and I think highlighting where each language played a role is a good method. But again a court is situated just in one city (mostly in the Persian speaking city of Isfahan), an official language is something used vastly throughout the empire for administrative purposes (coin being just one of them) and not just one city. So that is why Azeri-Turkish is mentioned as a court language, but for an official language, as long as there is a 3rd party Safavid expert source that calls it official language, it can be included in the article by Wikipedia guidelines, although still from my personal viewpoint, out of all the factors, only administrative language is key for being official. And administrators of all the Turkic, Mongolic and Turcophone ruling dynasties of Iran(and even many times India and Central Asia) were usually in the hands of Tajik/Tat/Persian/Iranic elements, while the army was mainly in the hands of Turkic/Mongolic elements. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Another example would be of course Persian poets in the courts: "In the 16th century a central court was again estab­lished in Persia, under the Safavids, but it did not provide a fresh impulse to court poetry. On the contrary, the theocratic nature of the regime tended to favor the development of religious poetry on Shiʿite themes. Shah Ṭahmāsb I (930-84/1524-76) discour­aged Moḥtašam Kāšānī from writing panegyrics and advised him to write elegies on the martyrdom of the imams (cf. Ṣafā, Camb. Hist. Iran, p. 954). Neverthe­less, court poetry was revived to some extent at Isfahan in the 17th century, though for the majority of contem­porary poets the Indian courts offered more attractive prospects. " [24]. Another example of usage of Persian court poetry is elegies of say Sa'eb Tabrizi in the court for Shah Abbas and etc. So overall court poetry is an example of usage of Persian in the court, but again since the Safavid family was Turcophone, I assume the majority of the time, Azeri-Turkic was the main language of the court. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Also Shah Tahmasp himself was from the court and has composed Persian poetry (some are recorded by Bakikhanov). Here are more "More conspicuous yet was the interest ahmāsp I (930-84/1524-76) took in literature and the arts during the first twenty years of his reign. His patronage was matched by the wakīl �āIī -�ihān and

the shāh's brother Sām Mīrzā (923-74/1517-67 [q.v.]). The latter left the most valuable record of early �afawid literature in a ta��kiraentitled Tu(fa-yi Sāmī. Prominent among the many court poets of his reign were the wakīl 's son Sharaf -�ihān (d. 968/1560), the satirist ayratī (d. 961/1553), Kamīrī (d. after 985/1578), and �Abdī Bēg Nawīdī (d. 988/1580)." (Encyclopedia of Islam, Safavids). "Up to a certain extent, court poetry revived under �Abbās I (996-1038/1588-1629), first at �Qazwīn, and since 1598 at Isfahān. The position of a malik al-Shuarā [q.v.] was filled by Ruknā Masīh (d. 1066/1655 or 1070/1659-60), and then by Shifā'ī (d. 1037/1627)."(same source) and another example: "A last period of great literary activity at the court of Isfahān were the reigns of �Safī I (1038-52/1629-42) and Abbās's II (1052-77/1642-66). This was the time of -�alāl al- Dīn Asīr [q.v.] (d. 1049/1639-40), �Qudsī (d. 1056/1646-7), Amānī of Māzandarān (d. 1061/1651) and Fasīhī (d. ca. 1080/1670), but above all of �ā=ib (d. 1088/1677-8 [q.v.]), the greatest poet of �Safawid literature.". So overall, I do not know the ratio of Turkish to Persian in the court (I assume since the Shahs were turcophone than Azeri-Turkic would be heard more), but in terms of some scholars and the poets, it shows Persian was also present in the court and all these court poets or even poetry from the King himself from the court in Persian also (like Tahmasp) shows it was present. But again the court is located in one section of a large city, and in my opinion, official language would be something that is used throughout the empire for administration.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Uzun Hasan's grandson

In the article various theories about the paternal side of the dynasty has been viewed. That's good. But maternal side is lacking. According to Massoume Price and Henry Smith Williams Uzun Hasan was Shah Ismail's grandfather on maternal line. (Uzun Hasan was the leader of Akkoyunlu Türkmens.) Maybe this explains his native Azeri tongue. So altough he was the shah of Persia, he should be considered as an Azeri, main difference from the Turks of Osmanli Empire was his Shia faith. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right. But I see no contradictions in the article.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Azerbaijani references

Vahanh, please, discuss your changes and come to agreement prior to wholesale removal of all words saying "Azerbaijani". Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Atabəy is right . Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani are indeed ancient historical terms . It may have nothing to do with modern names of nations , but in history it was a known name . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Origins: Greek and Western European Component

Rushing in where angels fear to tread, I have added a section explaining the Greek component of the Safavid ancestry. This genealogical information is sourced from the linked Wikipedia articles: Ismail I, Eudokia Palaiologina and Michael VIII Palaiologos. Someone may want to transfer the inline references from those articles to this one. Links to Eudokia Palaiologina's husband John IV of Trebizond, and the Empire of Trebizond (which was a small Greek-speaking empire on the south coast of the Black Sea that split from Byzantium) may also be worth adding as part of the Greek component.

The title of this section might be changed from "Greek and Western European Component" to "Greek Component" if if is felt that the link Charlemagne to the Mughals is too poorly-sourced. From the Michael VIII Palaiologos article, though, it seems unlikely that anyone in 13th century Europe with 11 emperors in his ancestry as well as countless nobles would not have been descended from Charlemagne. This link is of interest since it relates all of European royalty to the Safavids. Enon (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Separating out the Ancestry

As has been noted by plenty of tags the ancestry component has undue weight, and it does seem to have plenty of research and speculation behind it, as well as perhaps some devoted scholarly papers - so why not separate it into a new article, while preserving the first paragraph on this page. This will also move away most of the flame wars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.80.44 (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Safavid_dynasty/Archive_11&oldid=789561961"